1

THE VALIDATION OF RAPID CFD MODELING

FOR TURBOMACHINERY




PRESENTED AT
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS


FOR
CFD TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS AND FUTURE TRENDS


LONDON, ENGLAND
December 13, 14, 1999



BY:
DR. HSIN-HUA TSUEI
MR. KERRY OLIPHANT
DR. DAVID JAPIKSE


1

The Validation of Rapid CFD Modeling for Turbomachinery


Hsin-Hua Tsuei, Kerry Oliphant, and David Japikse
Concepts ETI, Inc.




Abstract

Good CFD calculations can be made to guide advanced turbomachinery design and development.
The computing time and storage requirements, however, differ greatly from one computational approach
to another and the resultant accuracy may well be debated. One specialist has suggested that most of the
important effects in a turbomachinery blade row might be resolved using a coarse grid of only 30,000
nodes, while others insist on grids with ten times this node count. Arguments abound concerning the use
of a wall law function as an engineering expedient. The present study draws on a set of seven (7)
different stages, for which much measured data is available, and provides answers to these issues of
sufficient depth to sensibly guide engineers in the economical and accurate utilization of their CFD tools.
A base for rapid calculations is established; it is expected that the design future will focus intensely on
agile, easy-to-use CFD as a base for advanced design development.


1. INTRODUCTION

Professor John Denton [1] observed that most of the important effects in a turbomachinery blade
row can be resolved using CFD with a moderately coarse grid of 30,000 node points. This observation
led to considerable thinking about and the eventual development of the pbCFD (Pushbutton CFD
1
)
code now in use at Concepts ETI, Inc. (CETI). The code is built around the original Dawes [2,3] solver
(BTOB3D), which was introduced in the late 1980s as the first commercially viable CFD package for
turbomachinery blade rows. Some 50 organizations around the world have come to use the Dawes code
and, in most cases, rather extensively. Some companies to this day prefer this solver for bladed rows over
any other CFD solver. After identifying at least five mechanisms by which the code could be accelerated
by a factor of two, careful development work was undertaken to improve accuracy, accelerate the code,
and make the flow code very easy, almost trivial, for engineers to employ; hence pbCFD was created.
Two computational errors were found in BTOB3D and corrected while creating pbCFD; these corrections
change the quantitative results.

A second interesting hypothesis concerning modern CFD modeling involves the method by which
wall shear layers are resolved. Codes such as the Dawes BTOB3D or the TASCflow
2
code often use a
logarithmic law near the wall to extrapolate the first grid point calculation down to the actual wall. While
it is known that the log law forms an excellent representation of a two-dimensional boundary layer,
preferably working outside of separation, it is also known that it is not a meaningful representation of
fully three-dimensional (skewed) boundary layers. Nonetheless, it is commonly used and it is the general
notion in the industry that if the first grid point is placed at a y+ in the range of 30-100, then very
reasonable results are obtained. By contrast, other people feel that low Reynolds number turbulence
models are preferable and allow one to compute the complete detail of the wall shear region. In this case,
a y+ value on the order of one should be used to get numerical accuracy. The grid sizes for the latter may
be quite large. Clearly, there is some conflict between the notion that Professor Dawes put forth (use the

1
Pushbutton CFD is a trademark of Concepts ETI, Inc.
2
TASCflow is a trademark of AEA Technology plc.

2


law of the wall) and the advocates for the low Reynolds number turbulence modeling, at least when
viewed from the perspective of practical industrial calculations.

The present work covers a number of different test cases and compares some of the currently
available computer codes. The modified Dawes code in the form of pbCFD and the FINE/Turbo
3
code
from NUMECA International, which utilizes the low Reynolds number turbulence modeling approach,
are used herein. The ideas presented above require examination against data. It has become clear to the
investigators that any single test case could be very misleading when looked at alone. Consequently, it
was felt that a more statistical approach was necessary and that a number of relevant tests must be
conducted. The first collection of data comprises seven different centrifugal compressor and centrifugal
pump examples. These are simply the first group that was easy to assemble. It is a future objective to
expand this set of comparisons up to approximately 20 different stages, hopefully before the end of 2000.
In most instances, good data are available but work is required.

A fundamental rule of the work reported herein is to prohibit any parametric tweaking while using
pbCFD. In other words, once a basic set of modeling parameters is chosen, they must be used for the
whole set of comparisons. Certain supporting studies have been conducted about sensitivity to the grid
size and also to appropriate y+ values in order to provide useful background research. Nonetheless, the
final comparison values to be used to judge the success of the pbCFD are based on a single set of
operating parameters. In other words, no final tweaking of grids is to be permitted, no manipulation of
the turbulence model shall be pursued, no messing with artificial viscosity is allowed and, of course, a
common approach to handling y+ near the wall is used for all cases.

A few items should be noted. All of the work presented herein must be considered preliminary at
this time and is subject to further revision. It is probable that some errors will be found both in data and
in CFD which must be fixed. Indeed, for the PR-1.8 case we have repeated the traverse data three times
in order to get data of sufficient accuracy that little error is being contributed from the laboratory; similar
steps may be required for other cases. Likewise, the clearance flow or cavity leakage flow has not been
modeled for pbCFD. Further checks will be made and revisions reported at later times. These checks
will include detailed matching of the actual distribution of traverse data at the impeller exit including total
pressure, static pressure and yaw angle. Finally, it must be noted that the design reports referred to herein
are generally proprietary and are mentioned in the report for historical documentation purposes. All
proprietary information has been eliminated from this report. Consortium stages such as the PR-4.5 and
PR-1.8 are available to the participants of those consortia only. The Eckardt data is generally available
throughout the world. The turbopump data are not available to the public.

It should also be noted that the calculations conducted herein with pbCFD are converged to the
design mass flow rate. An extension was made to the original Dawes BTOB3D program so that
convergence to a desired back pressure was replaced by convergence to a desired design flow rate. This
increases the computational time modestly, while providing considerable design utility.

Any effort to validate CFD is still extremely complicated and one must be careful and not read too
much into initial results. We intend to continue to refine and expand this work and to continue to question
every detail that could influence results. The present work is focused specifically on pbCFD based on the
historic Dawes code. It has not yet been possible to make calculations with FINE/Turbo at the same level
of intensity (i.e., rapid turn around). Consequently, any observation concerning FINE/Turbo is on an
early, preliminary basis. Nonetheless, the present FINE/Turbo results were prepared by a thoroughly
trained expert with this code and in some cases directly by NUMECA.


3
FINE/Turbo is a trademark of NUMECA International, s.a.

3

2. THE PR45 COMPRESSOR FAMILY

2.1 Background

The PR45 compressor family was studied through the Advanced Diffuser Consortium project.
Measured data, as well as computational results, were recorded in detail [4,5]. The design mass flow was
0.363 kg/s, with a rotational speed of 93,620 rpm. The inlet total pressure is 101.3 KPa while the inlet
total temperature is 293 K. The inlet swirl and pitch angles are both zero. The geometry of this
compressor is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 2. pbCFD mesh for PR45
impeller, grid size = 21 x 71 x 21 =
31,311.


Figure 1. The PR 45 impeller.


Figure 4. PR45 Impeller: pbCFD streamlines
and velocity vectors at one computational
surface away from the splitter suction surface.

Figure 3. PR45 impeller: pbCFD
streamlines and velocity vectors at one
computational surface away from the main
blade pressure surface.

4

This particular example was of considerable interest because early calculations showed no
separation in the passage, but as experimental results became available, it appeared that separation must
be involved and some backflow or recirculation was likely. A series of studies was initiated which
eventually led to the realization of some important modeling parameters and some errors in the BTOB3D
code which needed correction. One of the early discoveries was that the full inlet duct must be
realistically included with the impeller in order to obtain reasonable results. In the initial calculations,
used when the design was first prepared, the inlet duct was only one-third the length of the actual duct
used for test work. Subsequently, when the full inlet duct length was employed, separation was found in
the impeller passages. As changes were made to upgrade the Dawes code into the pbCFD algorithm,
more sensitivity studies for this particular configuration were conducted.

Detailed examination with the upgraded pbCFD of the computed flow field showed relatively
large separation regions near both the splitter and main blade suction surface. The separation covered a
depth from about the mean section to the shroud line. The revised pbCFD grid, with the extended inlet
section, provided a greater boundary layer loss for the flow near the shroud region before entering the
blade passages to result in the recirculation regions. Interestingly enough, with these separation regions
present, the computed pressure ratio and efficiency were still much higher than measured data. This
review raised a question about how accurate the original Dawes BTOB3D computational results were.
Normally we anticipate a much lower impeller efficiency if sizeable separation regions are present in the
blade passages. It was observed that the original Dawes code neglects the energy diffusion (heat
conduction and dissipation) terms in the energy equation, which could contribute to an observed
overprediction in pressure and lead to a high efficiency.

To determine the effects of the energy diffusion terms on the calculation results, these terms were
implemented into the Dawes solver. The energy diffusion terms are:

=

L
N
M
O
Q
P
+ +

F
H
G
I
K
J
L
N
M
O
Q
P

xi
k k
t
x
i
T
u
i
t
u
i
x
j
u
j
x
i
u
i
x
j
ij
b g
b g
2
3


Key results are displayed in Table 1. The 100% speed line data for rotor efficiency was used to
compare with the computational results. All data for the first three (of four) cases in this study utilize full
traverses (p
0
, p and ) just downstream of the impeller in a vaneless diffuser (the fourth case utilized total
pressure probes in the throat of a subsequent vaned diffuser).

As can be seen in this table, the computed efficiency is on the average of two points above the
measured values with the inclusion of the energy diffusion terms (compared to a much higher efficiency
prediction obtained without these terms). An additional error affecting viscous evaluation of splitter
blades was also discovered and fixed. Although the implementation of the energy diffusion terms and the
splitter fix improved the results of this case, this also means the modified Dawes solver results will bring
in a new perspective, which will impact on experienced Dawes code users. More study may be needed to
look at the effects of the energy diffusion terms with a range of specific speeds and grid sizes.

5


TABLE 1.
MEASURED EFFICIENCY COMPARED WITH
pbCFD PREDICTIONS.
Mass Flow Rate,
kg/s
Measured Rotor
Efficiency

Computed Rotor Efficiency
with Energy Diffusion Terms
(pbCFD)
Computed Rotor
Efficiency w/o
Energy Diffusion Terms
0.388 0.867 0.878 0.905
0.385 0.867 0.890 0.914
0.365 0.867 0.895 0.923

2.2 y+ and Grid Sensitivity Study

To better understand the effects of y+ =
y
w

/
and grid sensitivity on the original Dawes
solver solution quality, a study was undertaken. For detailed description of y+ and turbulent boundary
layer physics, please refer to reference [6]. Different values of y+ were obtained by either varying the
grid stretching function while the total number of grid points was fixed, or by increasing the grid number
in the hub-to-shroud and blade-to-blade directions. The grid node number in the meridional direction
remained unchanged because y+ variation depends on the first grid spacing to a wetted surface in the hub-
to-shroud and the blade-to-blade directions. The Dawes solver uses the algebraic Baldwin-Lomax
turbulence model coupled with a wall function for turbulent flow simulations. Such an approach requires
that the first grid point be located in the log layer region in order for the wall function to provide a
reasonable wall shear stress calculation.

The first approach to obtain various y+ values is to use different grid stretching factors in the hub-
to-shroud and blade-to-blade directions. The pbCFD default grid size was used. Table 2 summarizes
three different stretching factors and their corresponding computational results. The y+ values in this
table are average numbers throughout the blade passage. A larger grid stretching factor means the grid
will be clustered more heavily near a surface. All the computations were performed on a Pentium 400
MHz platform and converged to within 1% of the design flow rate of 0.363 kg/s.


TABLE 2.
THE EFFECTS OF y+ ON THE SOLUTIONS, BASED ON THE DEFAULT GRID SIZE OF
21 X 71 X 21, BUT DIFFERENT STRETCHING FACTORS USING BTOB3D.
Strtch Fctr Mass Flow kg/s y+
tt
p
02ma
Pa

p
2ma
Pa

T
02m
K

M
2
1 % err
CPU
2 % err
CPU
1.2 0.3662 87.33 0.8602 6.082E5 3.167E5 520.91 1.012 20 15
1.3 0.3640 51.47 0.8520 6.043E5 3.113E5 521.87 1.021 38 30
1.4 0.3629 30.57 0.8587 6.130E5 3.144E5 522.41 1.025 42 33
1.5 0.3658 18.21 0.8578 6.156E5 3.159E5 523.36 1.025 45 39
(Pressures are mass averaged)

The pbCFD default grid and stretch factor (1.2) gives a y+ close to 90. Knowing that the wall
function was designed to apply in the log layer, ideally y+ < 100, it is appropriate to apply this y+ when
using wall functions. However, this y+ value is more on the high end of the wall function application
criteria. Increasing the stretch factor to 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 would provide smaller y+ values of about 50, 30,
and 20, respectively. The computed efficiency was within a few tenths of a point from one another, and
the computed flow variables at the TE were in good agreement with each other. The measured rotor
efficiency was about 0.867. The computed results are all in good agreement with the measured efficiency
(recall that leakage is not yet included in this study). One noticeable difference is that the CPU time
usage goes up when the y+ value decreases. The stronger the grid stretching is, the larger the cell aspect

6

ratio is. This situation creates the so-called acoustic stiffness condition (which means the signal
propagates much faster in one direction than another) and makes it difficult for the solver to converge
quickly. For pbCFD design screening, the default grid size (21 x 71 x 21) with the default stretching
factor (1.2) is therefore, recommended and suffers no loss in accuracy.

The next step is to investigate the second possibility of reducing y+: increase the grid points in
both the hub-to-shroud and the blade-to-blade directions, while keeping the stretching factor fixed at 1.2.
The calculated results are shown in Table 3.

In this table, as the grid increases, the y+ values decrease significantly, from about 90 to less than
10. A consistent trend was observed. For the medium grid size (31 x 71 x 31) case, the y+ is about 30
and provides a very close prediction to the measured rotor efficiency. For the fine grid case (41 x 71 x
41), with the fact that the y+ already falls in the viscous sublayer (y+ < 10), coupled with the large grid
size, the wall function produces excessive viscous stress near the wall region to cause the loss to be
higher than measured, hence resulting in a lower rotor efficiency. It is recommended to not allow a first
y+ value to fall in or near the viscous sublayer when using the wall function. Although the medium grid
size case gave a good prediction, the only trade-off is the CPU time requirement. The CPU time needed
to converge the medium grid size case to the design flow was increased by a factor of four. This CPU
time requirement goes up exponentially when grid size increases.


TABLE 3.
THE EFFECTS OF y+ ON SOLUTIONS, BASED ON THE SAME STRETCHING FACTOR
BUT DIFFERENT GRID SIZES USING BTOB3D.
Grid Size Mass Flow
kg/s
y+
tt
p
02ma
Pa

p
2ma
Pa

T
02m
K

M
2
1 % err
CPU
2 % err
CPU
21x71x21 0.3662 87.33 0.8602 6.082E5 3.167E5 520.91 1.012 20 15
31x71x31 0.3648 28.36 0.8423 5.982E5 3.105E5 522.92 1.015 87 65
41x71x41 0.3628 8.04 0.8235 5.969E5 3.116E5 527.84 1.010 267 191
(Pressures are mass averaged)


From Table 1 and other results of this study, it is observed that the rotor performance prediction
does not depend on the y+ value alone. For example, a case using a 21 x 71 x 21 grid, with a stretching
factor of 1.4 and a second case of 1.2 (31 x 71 x 31), with a stretching factor of 1.2 are representative
cases with y+ about 30. The predicted rotor efficiency for these two cases was about one and a half
points apart from one another. The latter predicted a lower total pressure and Mach number at the TE,
while the total temperature was almost the same. This indicated that the finer grid produced a larger loss
near the wall regions to result in this discrepancy. We learn from Table 2 that the use of the pbCFD
default grid provides a very reasonable first approach, while a medium grid size might provide a finer
solution compared to test data. Further increasing the grid density in an attempt to reduce y+ to within
the viscous sublayer is not recommended when the wall function is used.

The tests were conducted using two different grid systems (31 x 71 x 31 and 41 x 71 x 41) with
the stretching factors of 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. This was done to further investigate the effects of grid size
(moving in the direction of a numerical grid independence) versus the effects of wall y+ values. The
biggest effect found, however, was the tendency for large grid systems to force the first grid point into the
laminar sublayer or into the laminar to turbulent transition regime, therefore significantly changing the
computed results. No conclusions were reached concerning grid independence; the problem concerning a
y+ value in the range of 30 to 100 was reinforced. Additionally, the changing value of y+ throughout the
computational iterations was examined. As a rule, the value of y+ can drop anywhere from 10% to 50%
from the initial calculation to the final converged result as the computational process proceeds and hence,

7

one must be careful, once again, to choose a grid system with a sufficiently high initial y+ (on the order
of 70 to 100 is recommended, recognizing that the values will decrease during the iterations). A future
development is clearly required: an automatic method must be included within the codes to continuously
scan for y+ values and to be sure that the grid system is realistic in terms of the first y+ value adjacent to
a wall. When such a procedure is available, then numerical grid insensitivity studies can be properly
conducted.

2.3 FINE/Turbo Results

The FINE/Turbo solver was also used by to perform the calculation for the baseline case.
Computational results of three different levels (coarse, medium and fine) were included. The coarse
mesh size was about 8,000 nodes, the medium mesh size was 52,000 nodes, while the fine mesh size was
382,000 nodes. The medium mesh size was comparable to the pbCFD default grid size. The mass flow
error was within 1% of the design flow rate for the fine mesh, about 1.5% for the medium grid, and about
4% for the coarse mesh. The computation for the medium grid needed 41 CPU minutes on a Pentium 200
MHz processor platform (equivalent to approximately 20 CPU minutes on a Pentium 400 MHz
processor) to converge.

The FINE/Turbo results also indicated that the separation regions existed near both the splitter
blade suction surface and the main blade suction surface. These recirculation regions were also observed
in BTOB3D and pbCFD solutions, as above. The FINE/Turbo results (mass averaging is used for all
CFD results) are summarized in Table 4. All of the efficiency and rotor exit pressures are low compared
to the data.


TABLE 4.
FINE/TURBO PREDICTION RESULTS FOR THE PR45 BASELINE CASE.
Grid Size Mass
Flow kg/s
y+
tt
p
02ma
Pa

p
2ma
Pa

T
02m
K

M
2
Residual
Convergence
1 % err
CPU
2 % err
CPU
8,000 0.3444 <5 0.6505 4.179 2.263 512.41 0.948 N/A N/A
52,000 0.3588 <2 0.7168 4.740 2.526 520.19 0.994 N/A 20
382,000 0.3602 <1 0.6954 4.648 2.443 526.17 1.021
Less
than 3
orders
N/A N/A
(Pressures are mass averaged)


2.4 Summary

Comparative results are as follows. Figure 2 illustrates the pbCFD computational grid and, while
it definitely is not coarse in character, it is not a thoroughly resolved fine grid. Figure 3 shows the
streamlines along a surface that is very close to the main blade pressure side; it is located one
computational surface or grid element away from the pressure side. The streamlines are very orderly and
the flow is essentially collateral. Figure 4 displays a similar result but it is one computational station
away from the splitter blade suction surface. In this case, a region of backflow or recirculation is
observed in addition to the normal development of strong secondary flow. Similar results have been
obtained with Fine/Turbo as shown in Figure 5. This computation, however, uses 382,000 node points,
yet yields a qualitatively similar flow field.

The y+ and grid sensitivity showed that a very good pbCFD prediction could be obtained if the
first y+ value is in the mid-range of the log layer, i.e., 70 < y+ < 100 (if the y+ is in the viscous sublayer,
a combination of inappropriate modeling methodology would likely occur).

8

A summary of rotor measured and predicted
values is given in Table 5, the Dawes is close; the
FINE/Turbo result (0.833) is a little bit low. The
Dawes pressure ratio is high; the FINE/Turbo
pressure ratio is low. The FINE/Turbo solver uses a
low Reynolds number turbulence model to treat near
wall turbulence; therefore, the first grid point must
be placed in the viscous sublayer (y+ < 10) to
provide a reasonable prediction. The coarse,
medium and fine grids all have the first grid point in
this regime. FINE/Turbo predicted a total pressure
ratio at the impeller exit of 4.6. This trend of
underprediction was consistent for all three grid
sizes, with the fine grid approaching a total of
400,000 nodes. The reason for this underprediction
remains unclear. More effort to investigate the
accuracy and quality of the FINE/Turbo solution is
needed.
Figure 5. PR45 Impeller: FINE/Turbo results
streamlines and velocity vectors at main blade
suction surface, grid size = 382,000 nodes.



TABLE 5.
SUMMARY
Mass Flow
Rate kg/s

meas

pbCFD

FT
pr
02m

(meas)
pr
02A

(meas)
pr
pbCFD
pr
FT

0.363 0.867 0.895 0.833 5.12 5.59 5.98 4.59
(FT) - FINE/Turbo (02m) Impeller exit, mixed out state. (02A) Impeller exit, mass averaged.


The pbCFD default grid using 32,000 nodes with a stretching factor of 1.2 (with y+ ~ 90)
performed very well compared to the medium and fine grid size calculations. The rotor efficiency
prediction, as well as major flow field characteristics, was captured by using this coarse grid. To begin
examining the flow field of a new design, and also when running automatic optimization, it is highly
recommended that the default grid size and stretch factor should be used to provide fast engineering
solutions. The Dawes code was not designed to compute really large grid sizes. It works most efficiently
when grid size is in the range of 30 K to 60 K nodes. The results of grid sizes over 100 K nodes could be
misleading if the y+ becomes inappropriate. After course grid results, based on y+ information, one can
fine tune the analysis by using a moderately larger node count if necessary.


3. THE PR18 COMPRESSOR

3.1 pbCFD Results

The low pressure ratio (pr = 1.8) compressor, PR18, was studied through two different consortia
programs [4]. The design mass flow was 0.15 kg/s, with a rotational speed of 43,560 rpm. The inlet total
pressure and total temperature are 101.3 KPa and 300 K, respectively. There was no net swirl at the inlet.
At the design point, the rotor efficiency was measured at 0.954 with a vaneless diffuser. The rotor
pressure ratio was measured, by traverse with mass averaging, at 2.09. The geometry of the PR18
compressor is shown in Figure 6.




Figure 6. PR18 stage.
The pbCFD default grid size of 21 x 71 x 21
(total of 31,311 nodes) was used for this study. All
CFD control parameters were set to default values,
including the use of the energy diffusion terms.
The PR18 compressor was composed of 16 main
blades. The inlet extension duct is bent 180 prior
to the impeller leading edge, and the downstream
element stretches to a location more than a full
length of the impeller. The downstream radial
extension region was cut short by using a CFD
replacement segment to force more grid points in
the impeller section to provide better predictions. It
took 20 CPU minutes on a Pentium 400 MHz
processor for the mass flow solver to converge the
solution to within 1% of the design flow, 15 CPU
min. to within 2% of the design flow. The final
mass flow at the end of the computation was recorded at 0.1503 kg/s, almost exactly to the design flow of
0.15 kg/s. The predicted rotor efficiency was 0.933, about two points lower than the measured data.
Front cavity leakage is not included. In the computed results, the flow was well guided through the blade
passages, with no separation region observed in the flow field. The computational results with or without
the energy diffusion terms only showed two tenths of a point difference in predicted rotor efficiency,
possibly due to the two dimensionality of the rotor blade and the low pressure ratio. Table 6 summarized
the mass-averaged pbCFD results.

An additional observation can be made from Table 6. Results are entered using only part of the
inlet duct (90 inlet) and the full inlet duct which covers 180 of turning. Once again, it is observed that
modeling the full inlet is important. With only half of the inlet duct, the stage efficiency is computed at
one point higher efficiency than with the full inlet duct.


TABLE 6.
THE PUSHBUTTON CFD PREDICTIONS FOR THE PR18 COMPRESSOR.
Inlet Mass
Flow kg/s

tt

p
02m
Pa
p
2
Pa
T
02m
K
M
2
Conv 1% err.
CPU min.
2% err.
CPU min.
90 inlet 0.1503 0.9425 2.347E5 1.750E5 386.44 0.662 2.5 20 15
180 inlet 0.1520 0.9331 2.355E5 1.776E5 386.58 0.648 2.0 30 20
(FT) - FINE/Turbo (02m) Impeller exit, mixed out state. (02A) Impeller exit, mass averaged.


3.2 FINE/Turbo Results

The FINE/Turbo CFD solver was also used to perform the calculation of the PR18 compressor.
Table 7 shows the overall results of the different computations. The mesh size for one of the
computations was comparable to the default mesh size in the pbCFD study and an additional finer mesh
was also computed by NUMECA. As shown in Tables 7 and 8, the calculated efficiency varies from one
to two points below the measured value. These NUMECA cases were run with only the 90 bend at the
inlet.

9

10


Table 7.
FINE/Turbo prediction results for PR18 compressor.
PR18 Mesh
Size
y+ Mass
Flow
kg/s

tt

p
02m
Pa
Conver-
gence
NUMECA 28,350 ~8 0.15 0.92 2.27e5 > 3.0
NUMECA 212,954 ~4 0.15 0.94 2.28e5 > 3.0


Figures 7 through 12 show the computed velocity vectors and streamlines. Figure 7 shows the
standard computational grid for the pbCFD computation. Figures 8, 9, and 10 show the computed
streamlines near the blade pressure surface (there are no splitters), in the mid-channel and near the blade
suction surface, respectively. The core flow (Figure 9) is quite orderly and reasonably collateral. The
flow near the pressure surface and the suction surface shows the development of substantial secondary
flow with the distinct possibility of backflow near the end of the blade on the suction surface. It may also
be observed that the inlet duct is designed with very good flow control and no evidence of separation is
observed in the inlet, even though regions of moderate diffusion are unavoidable. This helps confirm a
design hypothesis that such inlet ducts can be configured without inlet separations. Additionally,
important results from FINE/Turbo are shown in Figures 11 and 12. Very strong secondary flows are
observed on the pressure surface with moderate distortion on the suction surface (Figures 11 and 12,
respectively). Some very small regions of localized separation are observed. This separation at the inlet
is not of concern in as much as it essentially represents a horseshoe vortex which must exist at the inlet
regardless. This type of separation is not a classical two-dimensional or skewed boundary layer (3-
dimensional) separation, but simply the development of an inevitable secondary flow. Near the impeller
exit, a small separation zone appears to exist just at impeller exit, but with only a little backflow into the
impeller exit. Further studies should be conducted by changing impeller tip depth, the diffuser pinch, and
the possible use of splitters to change the blade number. In general, there is qualitative similarity between
the results between the two different codes.






Figure 7. PR18 impeller with a 180
U-Bend inlet: pbCFD mesh, grid size =
21 x 71 x 21.






















Figure 8. PR18 impeller. pbCFD
streamlines and velocity vectors at one
computational surface away from main blade
pressure surface.

11






Figure 9. PR18 impeller with a 180 U-bend
inlet: pbCFD streamlines and velocity
vectors at mid-channel.






















Figure 10. PR18 impeller with a 180
U-bend inlet: pbCFD streamlines and
velocity vectors at one surface away from
the main blade suction surface.





Figure 12. PR18 impeller FINE/Turbo CFD
calculation, grid size = 42650 nodes, blade
suction surface.

Figure 11. PR18 impeller FINE/Turbo CFD
calculation, grid size = 42650 nodes, blade
pressure surface.





12

3.3 Overview

Table 8 is a comparison between the pbCFD results and the FINE/Turbo results at approximately
the same mesh size. The CFD results over-predict the pressure ratio by about 10% to 13%. The
FINE/Turbo (run at NUMECA) is closer to the measured rotor efficiency than the FINE/Turbo run at
CETI which is about seven points too low. The pbCFD results underpredicted the efficiency by about
two points. Front cavity leakage must be modeled in future work but this will require a multi-block
scheme.


Table 8.
Summary of results from PushButtonCFD and FINE/Turbo

meas

pbCFD

numeca

pr
02m,meas.
pr
02,
pbCFD
Pr
2a
pr
02,FTnumeca

0.954 0.933 0.935 2.09 2.32 2.15 2.24
meas - Measured; FTnumeca - FINE/Turbo at NUMECA


4. ECKARDT RADIAL COMPRESSOR

4.1 Background

The so-called Eckardt compressor was an
available stage that was carefully studied and
reported by D. Eckardt (1987). The rotor has 0
backsweep. At the design point, the compressor
operates at a rotational speed of 14,000 rpm with
a design mass flow of 5.32 kg/s. The rotor is
composed of 20 main blades, with no splitters.
The inlet conditions were the standard operating
conditions, with a total pressure of 101.3 KPa and
a total temperature of 288 K. At 14,000 rpm, the
measured rotor total pressure ratio was 2.180 and
the stage efficiency was measured at 0.951. The
geometry is shown in Figure 13.


Figure 13. Eckardt rotor 0 as used for CFD
studies.
The standard pbCFD default grid (21 x 71
x 21) and stretch factor (1.2) were used to
perform the calculation. The energy diffusion terms were included in the computation. The calculation
converged to within 1% of the design flow rate and took about 40 CPU minutes on a Pentium 400 MHz
platform. With a broader error margin, say 2%, it still needed about 33 CPU minutes on the same
computer. Detailed examination of the flow field solution indicated that the relative Mach number for a
major portion of the compressor blade passage (from the pressure surface to mid-channel, from hub to
mean area) fell below 0.2, a speed low enough to cause the unpreconditioned pbCFD code to converge
slower. This was the reason that led to this uncharacteristically long CPU time. To show that the mass
flow solver functions properly and that the CPU time is reasonable for this compressor calculation, a
single fixed pressure ratio run was tested to investigate the convergence characteristics. At a fixed
pressure ratio, the pbCFD code needed about 30 CPU minutes to converge the solution to this specific
pressure ratio. The mass flow solver, which iterates the code to match a specified flow rate, converged
the solution to within 1% error of the design point in 60 CPU minutes. Because of the pbCFD code
limitation, further improvement on CPU time at the design point for the Eckardt compressor is not likely
to occur without the implementation of a preconditioning system to the pbCFD solvers (now in progress).

13

The computational results are tabulated in Table 9. The computation was conducted with the
effects of the thermal diffusion terms included. The predicted rotor efficiency was 0.951. The measured
total-to-static pressure ratio downstream of the TE was 1.471 at hub and 1.464 at shroud. The measured
total-to-total pressure ratio 7% (in radius) downstream of the TE was about 2.195. The computational
data are in very good agreement with the measured data.


TABLE 9.
THE PREDICTED ECKARDT COMPRESSOR ROTOR EFFICIENCY AND FLOW
PROPERTIES AT DESIGN POINT.
Mass Flow kg/s
tt

p
02m
Pa
p
2
Pa
T
02m
K
M
2
1% err.
CPU min.
2% err.
CPU min.

Computation

5.36

0.945

2.195E5

1.469E5

363.35

0.780

40

33

Data

5.32

0.951

2.205E5

1.447E5

363.5
____ _____ _____


4.2 y+ and Grid Sensitivity Study for Eckardt Compressor

The y+ and grid sensitivity effects on rotor performance prediction were also studied for the
Eckardt compressor. Different values of y+ were obtained by either varying the grid stretching function
while the total number of grid points is fixed, or by increasing the grid number in the hub-to-shroud and
blade-to-blade directions.

The first approach to obtain various y+ values is to use different grid stretching factors in the hub-
to-shroud and blade-to-blade directions. The default grid size was used. Table 10 summarizes three
different stretching factors and their corresponding computational results. The y+ values in this table are
averaged throughout the blade passage. A larger grid stretching factor means that the grid will be
clustered more heavily toward a surface. All the computations were performed on a Pentium 400 MHz
platform and converged to within 1% error of the design flow rate of 5.32 kg/s.


TABLE 10.
THE EFFECTS OF y+ ON THE SOLUTIONS, BASED ON THE DEFAULT GRID SIZE OF
21 X 71 X 21, BUT DIFFERENT STRETCHING FACTORS.
Strtch Fctr Mass Flow kg/s y+
tt

p
02m
Pa
p
2
Pa
T
02m
K
M
2
1 % err
CPU
2 % err
CPU
1.2 5.362 175.9 0.945 2.195E5 1.469E5 363.35 0.780 40 33
1.3 5.325 112.0 0.96 2.195E5 1.460E5 362.13 0.786 22 18
1.4 5.364 59.6 0.960 2.203E5 1.478E5 362.57 0.777 38 30
1.5 5.344 33.0 0.962 2.211E5 1.481E5 362.78 0.778 50 35
1.6 5.329 19.4 0.96 2.215E5 1.482E5 362.73 0.779 45 30
1.7 5.345 11.7 0.960 2.211E5 1.479E5 364.03 0.781 50 35


In this table, when the stretching factor was 1.2, the resultant y+ was 175, a value much higher
than the ideal wall function applicable range. When y+ is lowered to about 100 or less, but larger than
10, the predicted rotor efficiency, as well as other parameters, showed a very consistent trend. Although
slight overprediction for the pressure ratio is observed, overall, the predicted results are in good
agreement with the measured data. Indeed rotor efficiency prediction is now improved and the agreement
is very good. Further stretching the grid into the viscous sublayer (y+ < 10) is not recommended.



14

The next step is to investigate the second possibility of reducing y+: increase the grid points in
both the hub-to-shroud and the blade-to-blade directions, while keeping the stretching factor fixed at 1.2.
The calculated results are shown in Table 11. In this table, as the grid count increases, the y+ values
decrease significantly, from about 176 to 24. A consistent trend was observed: y+ < 100 provides a very
close prediction to the measured rotor efficiency. The CPU time needed to converge the medium grid
size case to within 1% of the design flow was increased by a factor of four. This CPU time requirement
went up 8.5 times for the same criteria when the fine grid size was used.


TABLE 11.
THE EFFECTS OF y+ ON SOLUTIONS, BASED ON THE SAME STRETCHING
FACTOR BUT DIFFERENT GRID SIZES.
Grid Size Mass Flow kg/s y+
tt

p
02m
Pa
p
2
Pa
T
02m
K
M
2
1 %
err
CPU
2 %
err
CPU
21x71x21 5.362 175.9 0.9455 2.195E5 1.469E5 363.35 0.780 40 33
31x71x31 5.364 60.41 0.9562 2.198E5 1.464E5 362.64 0.785 131 76
41x71x41 5.321 23.63 0.9621 2.218E5 1.456E5 361.88 0.790 305 191


In terms of grid sensitivity, a grid size of 31 x 71 x 31 was used. This selected grid size represents
the total number of grid points doubled. Table 12 shows the computational results of the grid system of
31 x 71 x 31 with three different stretching factors. Consistent prediction results were observed when the
y+ value was in the log layer. When y+ falls below 10, in the viscous sublayer, both the predicted total
pressure and efficiency started to go up, a result of the wall function being cut off leading to insufficient
loss near wall regions, as found earlier in the PR45 compressor study. The CPU time required to
converge the solution to within 1% of the design flow increases dramatically. The computational results
showed good agreement with the coarse grid calculation shown in Table 9. It again proves that, for
screening purposes, the coarse grid case (21 x 71 x 21), can be used sensibly in the design iteration and
optimization process to make engineering design decisions.


TABLE 12.
THE EFFECTS OF Y+ ON THE SOLUTIONS, BASED ON THE DEFAULT GRID SIZE
OF 31 X 71 X 31, BUT DIFFERENT STRETCHING FACTORS.
Stretch Factor Mass Flow kg/s y+
tt

p
02m
Pa
p
2
Pa
T
02m
K
M
2
1 % err
CPU
2 % err
CPU
1.2 5.364 60.41 0.9562 2.198E5 1.464E5 362.64 0.785 131 76
1.3 5.311 26.29 0.9664 2.212E5 1.459E5 361.99 0.794 191 81
1.4 5.296 7.55 0.9706 2.225E5 1.471E5 362.34 0.788 191 87



Figures 14 through 16 show the computed streamlines. Figure 14 displays the computational grid
and, while it is a moderately coarse grid, it clearly holds a substantial amount of detail. Figure 15 shows
the streamline distribution on the pressure surface and, as distinct from other examples in this study, the
flow is not collateral along the pressure surface, but rather shows strong secondary flow development or
boundary layer skewing. This passage has excess width with very low Mach numbers along the hub
surface. Figure 16 shows similar streamlines along the suction surface and it is clear, with the strong
skewing on both pressure and suction surfaces, that a strong secondary flow must be developed in the
core of the passage.


15










Figure 14. Dawes mesh for Eckardt
impeller: rotor 0 (0 backsweep), grid size
= 21 x 71 x 21.










































Figure 16. Eckardt rotor 0: streamlines
and velocity vectors at one computational
surface away from the main blade suction
surface.
Figure 15. Eckardt rotor 0: streamlines
and velocity vectors at one computational
surface away from the main blade pressure
surface.


16

5. LIQUID HYDROGEN ROCKET TURBOPUMP

The liquid hydrogen alternative rocket
turbopump for the Space Shuttle Main Engine
(SSME) was developed at CETI for NASA Marshall
Space Flight Center. The work was sponsored by a
Phase I and II SBIR contract which is gratefully
acknowledged. A matrix of geometry variations was
considered in the rotor design process, with the final
design being a bowed-blade turbopump impeller. A
crossover diffuser was used in the stage. Because
liquid hydrogen is a cryogenic fluid, the inlet total
temperature was -420 F. The geometry of the liquid
hydrogen rocket turbopump is shown in Figure 17.


Figure 17. Liquid hydrogen turbopump as
evaluated with pbCFD (tested in water).
The CFD analysis for this project was
conducted using both the pbCFD and the
FINE/Turbo solvers. For the pbCFD solver, a procedure was used to convert pump modeling to an air-
equivalent compressor in order to perform the CFD calculations. This included matching all
dimensionless groups including head, flow, and Reynolds numbers. In cryogenic liquid H
2
, the Mach
number is substantial and it was roughly matched. By using the rules of equal flow coefficient, head
coefficient, and Reynolds number, fluid dynamic similarity between the pump flow field and the air-
equivalent blower/pump was guaranteed. Therefore, the calculated streamlines and rotor efficiency, as
well as flow angles, represent the flow field characteristics in the (liquid) pump blade passages. The
computations used measured swirl angle (from appropriate prior rig tests) and flow angle as part of the
inlet boundary conditions. The predicted rotor efficiency ranged from 0.96 to 0.97 using pbCFD and
0.976 to 0.996 using FINE/Turbo for these design variations. The measured rotor efficiency was about
0.96. In the future, a proper preconditioning system will be added to pbCFD to support incompressible
calculations.

The study used both solvers to evaluate a matrix (Table 13) of different design candidates. Two
different design engineers independently rated the performance characteristics of each design as noted in
the table. Using a rating from 1 to 5, where 1 would be an extremely benign or weak separation and 5
would be a strong or large separation, results of the two reviewers were averaged together and entries
were made in each category, one for pbCFD and the other for FINE/Turbo. Each reviewer came up with
almost the same results (but their averaging yielded the x.5 values, as opposed to simple integers).
Furthermore, each code generally led to approximately the same stage as being preferable. Using
FINE/Turbo, iterations, 3 and 4 looked the best and using pbCFD iterations, 4 and 5 looked the best.
(The FINE/Turbo efficiencies given in Table 13 were computed well after the design was completed and
did not figure in the design choice. Early post processing questions led to values that were not reliable.
The current values seem a bit high and the last case seems unlikely.) It was concluded that Case 4 should
be constructed. Case 4 was a very small modification of Case 3 with just a very slight change in the inlet
shroud slope angle of . It is noted that the measured efficiency was approximately 96%, as suggested
in Table 14. It may be noted for completeness, that the calculations made with the pbCFD solver actually
used a grid just over 50,000 node points; coarser grids using pbCFD are discussed below. FINE/Turbo
used 290,000 node points.

To further model the liquid hydrogen cryogenic pump, the pbCFD default grid size (21 x 71 x 21)
and stretch factor (1.2) was used to continue this study. The inlet conditions were created in CCAD
4
,

4
CCAD is a trademark of Concepts ETI, Inc.

17

with the total pressure and temperature set to the standard reference conditions. The solution took about
20 CPU minutes on a Pentium 400 MHz platform to converge to within 1% of the air-equivalent
compressor flow rate. The predicted rotor efficiency was 0.9655, within half a point of the measured
data. The rotor head rise coefficient was measured at 0.7; the pbCFD value was = 0.79. In the
computed pbCFD solution, there existed recirculation regions near the splitter blade suction surface and
in front of the LE, which were observed from previous pbCFD computations.

TABLE 13.
SUMMARY OF BTOB3D AND FINE/TURBO CFD RESULTS
FOR SELECTED DESIGN ITERATIONS+.
CASE DESIGN
FEATURE
BTOB3D
CALCULATIONS
SEPARA-
TION
RATING*
IMPELLER
EFFICIENCY
FROM BTOB3D
FINE/TURBO
CALCULATIONS
SEPARA-
TION
RATING*
IMPELLER
EFFICIENCY
FROM
FINE/TURBO
1 Nominal
contours,
blade
angles,
thickness.
Massive separation
and reverse flow
ahead of main blade
and at splitter suction
plus along main blade
suction surface.
5.0 97.1% Moderate separation
on suction side of
main blade near
leading edge.
Separation in front
of main blade.
3.5 98.6
2 Inlet blade
angle
increased 5.
Small upstream
separation, moderate
separation around L.E.
of splitter pressure
side, and new large
separation on splitter
and main blade
suction side.
3.5 97.0% Moderate separation
around splitter and
main blade L.E. NO
main blade L.E.
separation.
3.5 98.8
3 Contours
refined, hub
S-wall
introduced,
splitter
moved
forward.
Large separation on
splitter suction surface;
tiny backflow on main
blade suction surface
just before the splitter
L.E. location.
4.5 96.7% Probable small
separation on
suction side of
splitter and maybe
main blade near the
shroud.
2.0 97.6
4** Shroud inlet
angle
reduced 0.5
.
Tiny upstream
separation, moderate
splitter suction side
separating strong
skewing along shroud.
3.5 97.0% Modest separation
on suction side of
main blade and
slight separation on
suction side of
splitter blade near
the shroud.
2.5 98.2
5 Radical
changes in
distribution.
Reduced
turning in
inlet, modest
shroud ramp.
Reduced
shroud blade
angle by 2.5
.
Moderate separation in
front of main blade
leading edge,
moderate
separation in front of
and along splitter
suction side and
strong separation
along main blade
suction surface.
3.5 96.9% Modest separation
on suction side of
main blade and
slight separation on
suction side of
splitter blade near
the shroud.
2.5 97.3
6 Increased
blade
thickness to
increase
velocities at
mid-
passage.
Modest separation
upstream of main
blade and splitter
blade, large separation
on suction side of
splitter blade.
4.0 97.0% Modest separation
on main blade
suction surface,
possible slight
separation on
splitter suction
surface and slight
separation near
trailing edge on
suction surface of
each blade, all near
the shroud.
3.0 99.6
* 1 = Weak separation; 3 = Moderate separation; 5 = Strong or large separation.
** This design was selected for fabrication and testing.
+ Most of the changes are cumulative, i.e., case 4 includes most of the changes for cases 1-3.

18



TABLE 14.
SUMMARY

(measured)

tt

pbCFD

tt

FINE/Turbo

(measured)


pbCFD

FINE/Turbo
0.966 0.9655 98.2 0.79 0.70 0.67

Figures 18 through 22 show the computed streamlines. Computed streamlines are shown on a
number of key surfaces in this pump. Figure 18 is located close to the main blade pressure surface and
nearly collateral flow is observed, although a small bubble appears to exist just before the leading edge of
the main blade. The leading edge is not shown distinctly in this figure, but it is perpendicular to the axis
of the plot and is located just aft of the little bubbles shown along the shroud streamline. Similar results
are shown near the suction side of the splitter blade, and again, some evidence of a small recirculation
zone in front of the leading edge may be observed with larger recirculation downstream of this point, but
upstream of the splitter blade (location not shown, but approximately after the separation vortex).
Streamline results adjacent to the pressure side are as displayed in Figure 20. The separation zone is
small and the distortion in the streamlines is only moderate. Near the mid-channel region, between the
splitter and the blade, the flow field is more complex as shown in Figure 21. On the suction side of the
main blade, the flow becomes very complex with considerable secondary flow in some regions with local
recirculation displayed as revealed in Figure 22. Within the parameters available to influence this design,
the condition could not be improved further.







Figure 19. Liquid hydrogen rocket
turbopump: streamlines and velocity vectors
at one computational surface away from the
splitter suction surface. pbCFD results.
Z
R

Z
R


Figure 18. Liquid hydrogen rocket
turbopump: streamlines and velocity
vectors at one surface away from the main
blade pressure surface. pbCFD results.





19





Z
R

Figure 20. Liquid hydrogen rocket
turbopump: streamlines and velocity vectors
at one computational surface away from the
splitter pressure surface. pbCFD results.







Figure 22. Liquid hydrogen rocket
turbopump: streamlines and velocity vectors
at one surface away from the main blade
suction surface. pbCFD results.
R

Z

Figure 21. Liquid hydrogen rocket turbopump:
streamlines and velocity vectors at mid-
channel. pbCFD results.
R

Z







20

6. SUMMARY

A variety of CFD evaluations has been reported covering four of the seven study cases. Data for
the other three cases is now added for completeness. While this study is still in its infancy, some
comparisons can be made which provide initial understanding of pbCFD and the balance between coarse
grid and fine grid CFD calculations. Figure 23 compares the computed CFD efficiency versus the
measured CFD efficiency for pbCFD (12 points) and FINE/Turbo (10 points). Figure 24 compares the
pressure rise experience. There are still some questions about the best way to calculate both efficiency
and pressure rise from measured data and these are being worked separately (methods of averaging) and
will be reported further at a later date. We would estimate that the data uncertainty is about 1 point,
perhaps a bit more. More data and CFD results are needed in Figure 23 and 24 and such studies are
ongoing.

Although the results of Figures 23 and 24 are broadly acceptable and useful in basic engineering
studies, they can still be criticized. It would be nice to have the computational uncertainty reduced to
approximately one point, or essentially to the level of experimental error. This has not yet been
achieved and leaves room for further improvement. Likewise, the variation from either pbCFD or
FINE/Turbo in Figure 24 concerning pressure rise or head is not yet acceptable. The uncertainty on this
chart is somewhat larger and studies are still being conducted as to find the best method of reporting an
appropriate impeller exit average pressure. Nonetheless, these figures do raise a much more basic
question: given that a reasonable and nominal level of accuracy has been demonstrated by the coarse grid
CFD results, why are not the fine grid results considerably more precise than shown? The question is not
about the degree of accuracy or inaccuracy of the coarse grid pbCFD results, but rather why respected
high-performance codes such as FINE/Turbo are not showing more precision in the computed results.
This topic needs thorough examination in the future and the authors of this presentation are conducting
such studies.



Figure 24. CFD-predicted pressure ratio
versus measured pressure ratio (5 x
head coefficient used for some cases).
Figure 23. CFD-predicted efficiency
versus measured efficiency.



The entire debate about establishing numerical accuracy of CFD codes must be revisited. There is
enormous emphasis in the profession on establishing grid independence (a very worthy goal) and hence,
many groups concentrate on ever reduced grid sizes to establish this (potentially desirable) objective. If

21

the present study is carefully reviewed, it will be seen that this issue is much more complicated. The
results presented herein for the pbCFD method are not strictly grid independent, although most of the
variance due to grid changing has been reduced, eliminated, or controlled. Still, further numerical
resolution could be conducted to reduce this type of error. It will require, however, that a fixed condition
for y+ near the wall is implemented and that this value is maintained rigorously throughout the
computational process. A precise algorithm for doing this has not yet been established in the CFD
fraternity. Hence, all methods using a wall log function (pbCFD and frequently TASCflow and Fluent
products) may be nearly grid independent, but not strictly so at the present time when the wall law is
used. Based on the comparative results between a fine grid calculation and the coarse grid calculations in
Figures 23 and 24, it appears that a more important question is what are the relative levels of significance
between turbulence modeling, wall shear representation, grid independence, numerical
stability/convergence and damping issues within any CFD code.


7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of the work presented herein, a set of preliminary conclusions has been established.
They are as follows:

1. The comparison of computed versus measured efficiencies based on pbCFD is good. Nearly all of
the results agree within plus or minus two points of efficiency with respect to the measured value.
There is a good degree of consistency in the pbCFD calculations through all cases.
2. Calculations of rotor total-to-total pressure ratio (or head coefficient for pumps) showed more
scatter; further study is needed.
3. Flow patterns computed with pbCFD and also with the FINE/Turbo program were broadly similar
between the two codes, with minor differences. FINE/Turbo gives more exotic detail close to the
wall, but the bulk of the characteristics are broadly the same, at least so far as tested at the present
time.
4. Several comparative design cases were made with pbCFD and FINE/Turbo to determine what
type of design would result; essentially the same results were obtained with each code.
5. Professor John Dentons hypothesis is confirmed. Calculations with approximately 32,000 node
points (using pbCFD) work well for early design optimization studies. Calculations using a code
specifically intended for fine grids (about 300,000 nodes) did not give more accurate results.
6. Based on the successful results of pbCFD, it is evident that the logarithmic law of the wall, as
postulated by Prof. Dawes and others, competes very well with other approaches, such as using a
low Reynolds number turbulence model equation.
7. Conducting CFD calculations using the logarithmic wall function is quite successful if y+ is set
somewhere in the range of 70 to 100 for initial calculations. However, it would be desirable to
develop a standardized method that can hold a particular value throughout a flow field calculation,
or a specific distribution throughout said calculations, in order to lead towards grid independence
in the calculation methods. More development work in this area would be appropriate.
8. An organization using the Dawes BTOB3D code remains on a solid basis but updating to fix
known errors is certainly needed. There is no evidence at the present time leading to a
substitution for this very fine CFD code.
9. This paper establishes a comparison between coarse grid and fine grid computational
methodologies. Reasonable accuracy has been shown with each, with coarse grid results being of
good, basic, engineering accuracy. The question is not whether these calculations will ultimately
lead to truly high order precision (they have been demonstrated for basic design iteration studies)
but rather why are the fine grid studies not showing greater precision at the present time?

22

REFERENCES

[1] Denton, J.D., Turbomachinery Design Using CFD, AGARD Lecture Series 195, 1994.

[2] Dawes, W. N., A Computer Program for the Analysis of Three-Dimensional Viscous Compressible
Flow in Turbomachinery Blade Rows, Whittle Laboratory, Cambridge, UK, 1988.

[3] Dawes, W.N., The Development of a Solution Adaptive 3D Navier-Stokes Solver for
Turbomachinery, AIAA 91-2469, 1991.

[4] Japikse, D., Hinch, D., Yoshinaka, T., The Performance of Low-Solidity Airfoil Diffusers with
Centrifugal Compressor Stages at N
s
= 55 and N
s
= 85, Advanced Diffuser Consortium, Phase IV
Final Report, Concepts ETI, Inc. TM 399, March 1996.

[5] Hinch, D., Japikse, D., Yoshinaka, T., Range and Performance Enhancement through Diffuser
Optimization for the N
s
= 85 Centrifugal Compressor Stage, Phase V Final Report, Advanced
Diffuser Consortium, Concepts ETI, Inc. TM-565, November 1997.

[6] Japikse, D., Baines, N.C. Introduction to Turbomachinery, Concepts ETI, Inc., Wilder, VT, and
Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1997. See Section 8.2.

[7] Japikse, D., Karon, D., Yoshinaka, T., Evaluation of Rotating Stall at Various Re Levels in a 1
Stage Process Compressor Rig with Several Vaneless Diffusers, Final Report, Stability
Consortium, Concepts ETI, Inc. TM 400, April 1996.